and void. The correctness of this view was challenged before us on behalf of the appellant and we find considerable force in this challenge. The original notification dated 1st June, 1958 described ''.limestc:e used for lime burning" a:s a minor mineral but by the amendmg notification ci'ated 20th September, 1961 only "limestone used in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building material" was . regard1d as a minor mineral. The field of minor mineral, in so far as it 1oncerned limestone, was iaarrowed down. Formerly limestone used for burning for manufacture of lime, whatever may be the uses to which such lime may be put, whether as building material or for other purposes, was within the definition of 'minor mineral', but after the amendment, it was only limestone used for burning in kilns for manufacture of lime ' used as buildi1,1g material that was covered by the definition of minor mine1•.il. When limestone is used for burning for manufacture of lime for industrial or sophisticated purposes otherwise than as building material, it would have to be of superior quality and hence after the amendment, it was classified as major mineral, leaving only limestone used for bur1 .1ing in kilns for manufacture of lime used as building · material to be regarded as minor mineral. But in both cases, whether under the original notification or the amended notification, limestone was contemplated to be used for burning for manufacture of lime. The only difference was that i'.i the former, burning could be by •any means or process and lime manufactured could be for any purpose including building material, while in the latter, burning could be only in the kilns and for manufacture of lime used only as buildi1,1g material and for no other purpose. It would, therefore, be seen that the mere use of the expression "limestone for burning" would be •ambiguous. It would not indicate whether the limestone referred to is a major mineral or a minor mineral. That would all depend on how the limestone is to be bur.1t, whc:ther in kilns or otherwise, and what is the use to which lime manufactured by burning is to be put, whether as building material or for other purposes. The expression "limestone for burning" would, therefore, equally cover limestone as 'a minor mineral and that is clearly borne out by the Third Schedule to the Rules which prescribes a minimum output of 200 tonnes per acre per arr.mm for "limestone (for burning)". It cannot, therefore, be said that merely because the mineral for which the quarry lease was granted by the State Government to the appellant was described in the quarry lease as ":limestone for burning", it was a quarry lease for a major m1aeral. Whether it was a quarry lease for a minor mineral or a major mineral would have to be gathered from the other provisions of the quarry lease and the circumstances surrounding its execution.
